Fix estimation for sequestration potentials

[toniseibold]

Ensuring that the optimistic sequestration potential is equal or greater than the neutral estimation. In raw data e.g. data/CO2JRC_OpenFormats/CO2Stop_DataInterrogationSystem/Hydrocarbon_Traps.csv optimistic assumption is zero in some cases while neutral estimations are > 0.

Removing "conservative estimate Mt" from config since this leads to double counting of the sequestration potential in rule build_clustered_co2_sequestration_potentials.

• before: total sequestration potential of 89,982 Mt
• after: total sequestration potential of 16,227 Mt

Checklist

• I tested my contribution locally and it works as intended.
• Code and workflow changes are sufficiently documented. not applicable
• Changed dependencies are added to pixi.toml (using pixi add <dependency-name>). not_applicable
• Changes in configuration options are added in config/config.default.yaml.
• Changes in configuration options are documented in doc/configtables/*.csv. not applicable
• For new data sources or versions, these instructions have been followed. not applicable
• A release note doc/release_notes.rst is added. not applicable

[fneum]

@lisazeyen, if you have a moment, could you say whether that's correct? I think you once mentioned something specific about the accounting of the sequestration potentials.

[lisazeyen]

I think we only considered high-density storage so far. But I am not sure if there is some double counting. I am currently on holidays until the 8/3 does this have some time? Then I could look at my notes at home. In my PhD thesis I wrote different numbers (total sequestration 18 Gt: 9 Gt gas, 5Gt oil, 4 Gt aquifer) and I am not sure where the mismatch is coming from, is it including onshore?

[fneum]

@lisazeyen, I'm unsure how to judge this. Maybe you have the chance to have a look at your notes in the upcoming days?

[lisazeyen]

It should be either just the high-density storage or the conservative storage potential

Suggested change

	types = [" OIL", " GAS", " aquifer", ""]
	types = [" OIL", " GAS", " aquifer"]

[fneum]

Thanks, @lisazeyen! I agree with the change.

[lisazeyen]

@fneum @toniseibold sorry for the late reply.

One should include just one of the two: either the conservative estimation or only consider the high-density storage (gas, oil, aquifer). We actually already discussed this in this PR.

I would recommend to use only high-density storage because this is where most projects are planned. @toniseibold I still wonder why the numbers are slightly different in my PhD thesis compared to what is in the PR description, but might be just that I rounded the numbers.

[fneum]

Sounds good. Thanks @lisazeyen for checking (again)!

@toniseibold, I would avoid the .max(axis=1) hotfix if possible. See comment below.

[fneum]

Is this still necessary one @lisazeyen 's suggested changes are implemented? I would avoid that "correction" and work with the actual values in the dataset if possible.

[fneum]

Thanks, @lisazeyen! I agree with the change.